i will take one case that will serve both as symbol and example: the case of color. we hear the realists (those sentimental fellows) talking about the gray streets and the gray lives of the poor. but whatever the poor streets are they are not gray; but motley, striped, spotted, piebald and patched like a quilt. hoxton is not aesthetic enough to be monochrome; and there is nothing of the celtic twilight about it. as a matter of fact, a london gutter-boy walks unscathed among furnaces of color. watch him walk along a line of hoardings, and you will see him now against glowing green, like a traveler in a tropic forest; now black like a bird against the burning blue of the midi; now passant across a field gules, like the golden leopards of england. he ought to understand the irrational rapture of that cry of mr. stephen phillips about “that bluer blue, that greener green.” there is no blue much bluer than reckitt’s blue and no blacking blacker than day and martin’s; no more emphatic yellow than that of colman’s mustard. if, despite this chaos of color, like a shattered rainbow, the spirit of the small boy is not exactly intoxicated with art and culture, the cause certainly does not lie in universal grayness or the mere starving of his senses. it lies in the fact that the colors are presented in the wrong connection, on the wrong scale, and, above all, from the wrong motive. it is not colors he lacks, but a philosophy of colors. in short, there is nothing wrong with reckitt’s blue except that it is not reckitt’s. blue does not belong to reckitt, but to the sky; black does not belong to day and martin, but to the abyss. even the finest posters are only very little things on a very large scale. there is something specially irritant in this way about the iteration of advertisements of mustard: a condiment, a small luxury; a thing in its nature not to be taken in quantity. there is a special irony in these starving streets to see such a great deal of mustard to such very little meat. yellow is a bright pigment; mustard is a pungent pleasure. but to look at these seas of yellow is to be like a man who should swallow gallons of mustard. he would either die, or lose the taste of mustard altogether.

now suppose we compare these gigantic trivialities on the hoardings with those tiny and tremendous pictures in which the mediaevals recorded their dreams; little pictures where the blue sky is hardly longer than a single sapphire, and the fires of judgment only a pigmy patch of gold. the difference here is not merely that poster art is in its nature more hasty than illumination art; it is not even merely that the ancient artist was serving the lord while the modern artist is serving the lords. it is that the old artist contrived to convey an impression that colors really were significant and precious things, like jewels and talismanic stones. the color was often arbitrary; but it was always authoritative. if a bird was blue, if a tree was golden, if a fish was silver, if a cloud was scarlet, the artist managed to convey that these colors were important and almost painfully intense; all the red red-hot and all the gold tried in the fire. now that is the spirit touching color which the schools must recover and protect if they are really to give the children any imaginative appetite or pleasure in the thing. it is not so much an indulgence in color; it is rather, if anything, a sort of fiery thrift. it fenced in a green field in heraldry as straitly as a green field in peasant proprietorship. it would not fling away gold leaf any more than gold coin; it would not heedlessly pour out purple or crimson, any more than it would spill good wine or shed blameless blood. that is the hard task before educationists in this special matter; they have to teach people to relish colors like liquors. they have the heavy business of turning drunkards into wine tasters. if even the twentieth century succeeds in doing these things, it will almost catch up with the twelfth.

the principle covers, however, the whole of modern life. morris and the merely aesthetic mediaevalists always indicated that a crowd in the time of chaucer would have been brightly clad and glittering, compared with a crowd in the time of queen victoria. i am not so sure that the real distinction is here. there would be brown frocks of friars in the first scene as well as brown bowlers of clerks in the second. there would be purple plumes of factory girls in the second scene as well as purple lenten vestments in the first. there would be white waistcoats against white ermine; gold watch chains against gold lions. the real difference is this: that the brown earth-color of the monk’s coat was instinctively chosen to express labor and humility, whereas the brown color of the clerk’s hat was not chosen to express anything. the monk did mean to say that he robed himself in dust. i am sure the clerk does not mean to say that he crowns himself with clay. he is not putting dust on his head, as the only diadem of man. purple, at once rich and somber, does suggest a triumph temporarily eclipsed by a tragedy. but the factory girl does not intend her hat to express a triumph temporarily eclipsed by a tragedy; far from it. white ermine was meant to express moral purity; white waistcoats were not. gold lions do suggest a flaming magnanimity; gold watch chains do not. the point is not that we have lost the material hues, but that we have lost the trick of turning them to the best advantage. we are not like children who have lost their paint box and are left alone with a gray lead-pencil. we are like children who have mixed all the colors in the paint-box together and lost the paper of instructions. even then (i do not deny) one has some fun.

now this abundance of colors and loss of a color scheme is a pretty perfect parable of all that is wrong with our modern ideals and especially with our modern education. it is the same with ethical education, economic education, every sort of education. the growing london child will find no lack of highly controversial teachers who will teach him that geography means painting the map red; that economics means taxing the foreigner, that patriotism means the peculiarly un-english habit of flying a flag on empire day. in mentioning these examples specially i do not mean to imply that there are no similar crudities and popular fallacies upon the other political side. i mention them because they constitute a very special and arresting feature of the situation. i mean this, that there were always radical revolutionists; but now there are tory revolutionists also. the modern conservative no longer conserves. he is avowedly an innovator. thus all the current defenses of the house of lords which describe it as a bulwark against the mob, are intellectually done for; the bottom has fallen out of them; because on five or six of the most turbulent topics of the day, the house of lords is a mob itself; and exceedingly likely to behave like one.